Re: [bcn2004] Re: [hrl_2] I would like to see examples of internal derivations of Turkish words


Dear Rebb,

Thank you for your response to my previous writing.  I appreciate your taking time and responding to the points that I raised but you found not agreable by you.  In this letter, please find my responses interlaced in red with your writings in black. For completeness, my previous response to which you responded is also attached.

Rebbutri Mamsam Isheppu wrote:

Dear Dr. Kaya,


this is the promised second part of my response, devoted wholly to your comments on my lists of etyma.




You rearrange the Baltic forms of the word, in order to look similar to the first Turkish word that comes across your mind and more or less follows the vague concept of "heat". Yet you leave the closet cognates of the words (both phonetically and semantically) absolutely unnoticed:

Polat Kaya:  Dear friend, I rearrange them because they have already been arranged from Turkish in the form that you gave them. I notice your so-called "cognates", but for your information they are just "baloons" put up for distraction from the truth.  Let me give you two examples to illustrate my point.  Please note the following two Greek words: 

PALEIONTOLOGIKOS meaning "PALEONTOLOGOCAL". It is defined as "the science that deals with the life of past geological periods", [1, p. 713]. that is, to say the science that deals with the dead beings (animals and plants) of the ancient times. Supposedly, the root for this word is is the Greek word PALEO, that is,  a combining form meaning "old, ancient" + Greek ONTA meaning "existing things" + LOGY" meaning "speaking, saying, science".   

I say this etymology is completely bogus.  Let me explain: First of all,  The word PALEO, when rearranged as "OLEP-A", I find that it is a restructured and distorted form of the Turkish expression "LP O" meaning "it is dead", "it is a life of the past times", "it is ancient".  Thus the source is Turkish, not Greek.  Greek anagrammatizers stole it. 

With this background knowledge,  when we rearrange the word PALEIONTOLOGIKOS letter-by-letter as "ESKI-OLONTO-PILGA-O", I find the Turkish expression "ESKI OLONTO BILGI O"  meaning "it is the knowledge of ancient beings".  Turkish words ESKI means " old, ancient", OLONTO means "that which has become life", "that which is a being", BILGI means "knowledge", O means "it is".  Thus this so-called "Greek" word is actually a restructured, distorted and Hellenized Turkish expression in which there is no mention of the manufactured word "PALEO".  The meaning of the "Greek" word "PALEO" meaning "old, ancient" comes from the Turkish word "ESKI" meaning "old, ancient" or "LP" meaning "dead".  So you see there has been a clever usurpation from a mother/father language of TURKISH into the manufactured language of "Greek". Incidently, this Turkish expression has been used as the "definition" of this "Greek" word.

The other "Greek" word that I wanted to discuss with you is the word "PALEOKORITSO" meaning "bad girl, naughty girl" [2, p. 625 ]  implying that she has been doing things that good girls do not do.  As you can see, this "Greek" word also has the prefix "PALEO" in its front end.  With the given meaning used as a "guide" for its decryption, when the "Greek" word PALEOKORITSO is rearraenged letter-by-letter as "OROSPOLIK-ETA", I find the Turkish expression "OROSPOLUK EDI" (OROSPOLUK EDIR / EDIYOR) meaning she is "doing the prostitution" which describes the known "naughty girl" concept. If the decription is done in the form of  "ATE-OROSPOLIK", then, it is the restructured, distorted and Hellenized Turkish expression "ADI OROSPOLUK" meaning "its name is prostitution".  

Now you see that this Greek" word also has the prefix "PALEO" in its front end but the word has nothing to do with "old" or "ancient". Hence, the term "PALEO" is a deceptive and fictitious linguistic appendix that can take the place of many diffferent parts of the stolen source Turkish text. Now please do tell me in all honesty, did you know what I just told you? Since, what I see in these so-called "Indo-European" words are deceptions and dishonesty, then why should I not ignore their presence?  I know that they are there to confuse, to distract and not telling the truth. So I ignore your so-called "cognates" which itself is made up from Turkish expression "TANIG O". 

Incidently, the English term "PROSTITUTE" is said to be from Latin "PROSTITUTUS" from "PROSTITUERE"  [1, p. 798].  When this Latin word PROSTITUERE is rearranged letter-by-letter as "TE-ORUSPITER", I find the Turkish expression "aTI OROSPITIR" (ADI OROSPUDUR) meaning "its name is prostitute".  So again I find that a Turkish expression has been restructured, distorted and Romanized into the artificial language of "LATIN".  In view of all this, why should I not ignore your IE "cognates"? In my view they have lost all linguistic credibility!!!

The truth is that the "Indo-European" languages are artificially manufactured languagages from the mother / father language of Turkish.  But the linguists want to distract people from this fact by sophistry and direct the attention into some unrelated bogus words in order to cover up the dishonesty that has been carried out since very early times up to the present days. What has taken place is not easily admittable as it is a discgrace of those who did it.  By manufacturing languages from Turkish, they have also usurped ancient Turanian civilization.   

Your expression of 
"the vague concept of "heat""  is not clear.  I do not know what you are referring to! In other words you are vague in your statement.  Since you used the word "HEAT" and for your information, I would like to point out that even this so-called "English" word "heat" and also its relative word "hot" are derived from the Turkish word  "OD/OT" meaning "fire". OD/OT (Fire) is "hot" and it produces "heat". This is not clear to you because you do not know Turkish which is a limitation for you. 


First of all, the oldest attested (and thus probably closer to any ancestor) form can be seen in the Old Lithuanian /ungni/. In the closely related Slavic languages, the form can be reconstructed as *ognI "fire", Sanskrit has /agniH/ "fire", Latin /i(n)gnis/. To sum it up, we have the following IE cognates: /agniH, ognI, ungni, ingnis/ pointing to IE forms like */ngn-i-s/, or */eng/.

Polat Kaya: Your *ogni meaning "fire" is a restructured word.  All of these words belonging to so-called "Indo-European" languages look similar because they are all made up from the mother/father language of Turkish by religious people who knew Turkish and followed the ancient Turanian SUN, MOON and SKY related religion.  They knew that SUN, that is, Turkish "GN/KN was fire. Hence the source for these words including the Sanskrit  word "AGNI" is the Turkish word GN and GNESh meaning "SUN".  I explained all of these in many occasions.  Dear friend you are one of countless number of people who have been deceived by the system. I was like you until I discovered that what I see as European "languages" were based on falsehood and deception. I have shown countless number of IE words being falsely constructed from Turkish. Your term "attested" does not mean anything because those "attested" ones are based on falsehood. Turkish language has been stolen vigurously by the "Indo-European" language makers. This fact has been well covered by way of the deceptive propaganda and the whole world peoples have been conned.   


The meaning "fire" belongs to the stablest concepts. And indeed, we can find similar words in other families, such as Uralic */[ng]V/ "fire", Eskimo-Aleut *@kn@- "fire". They even follow the proposed Nostratic regular correspondences.


Your comparison is imperfect both phonetically and semantically. As for phonetics, it is all due to mere chance, as for semantics, it is so vague (there could be hundreds of other heat-related words) that only randomicity is acceptable as an explanation.

Polat Kaya:    Your so-called *@kn is nothing but Turkish word "KN" (GN).  In this regard the Eskimo-Aleut are un-altered Asiatic people and it is natural for them to use the worde "KN" or "KIN" for "fire" since their ancestors were "SUN" worshipper in Asia. Your saying that "They even follow the proposed Nostratic regular correspondences" is a wishful thinking.  The term "NOSTRATIC" is another linguistic concoction in trying to cover up the foot-prints of stealing from Turkish that the European "linguists" left behind. As for the second part of your statement, I say you are totally out of the field. You are not reading carefully nor understanding clearly.  Go back to my examples just above and read very carefully without villifying me. In time you will see that what I say is directly on the target!.  Even the term "semantic", supposedly from Greek "SEMANTIKOS", meaning "the science of meanings"  [1, p. 713], equires that the "names" given to concepts need to be "rational".  

With this "rule" in mind, when the Greek word  "SEMANTIKOS" is rearranged letter-by-letter as "SOS-MANTIKE", I find that it is actually the stolen, restructured, distorted and Hellenized Turkish expression "SOZ MANTIKI" meaning "the word rational", that is, " the rational of a name chosen for a concept".  Turkish word SZ" means "word, name" and MANTIK means "the rational", "the reason", "the logic".  You see again your Greek word and together with it all the other "semantic" related IE words are stolen and disguised from Turkish. Please take note of this!


Linguists, using much stricter rules, discovered firm and regular ties. You, using something that is so unimaginably blurred, have only discovered surface similarities in both the relevant variables. (Oh, there is one more factor that we could discuss here - sound symbolism - but that would make my response a lot longer).

Polat Kaya:  No my friend, you are terribly wrong on this! It is not my descriptions that are "blurred", but rather it is your understanding that is "blurred" under the influence of linguistic 'disinformation' that you have been subjected to all along.  Now when I hold the "light" of truth regarding languages and what has taken place, your sight becomed blinded by the glare of the truth.  Of course, it is not easy for you to switch your thinking from an artificially "darkened" linguistic description of "languages" to a "clearly" defined history of "languages". In one sense, you and many others are stunned in front of the light of the truth.  It will take some time for you to get over it and accept it.  I have no question about it.   As for your reference to "surface similarities", I should also tell you that you are wrong again.  I do not go by "surface similarities" of any word as you call it.  I rather go way deep into the heart of the word where I find the concept to which word is a "name".  I am sure you and many "linguists" are not even aware of this fact.  But ancients were aware of it and they used this fact in manufacturing words for Indo-European and Semitic languages from Turkish. So I say be careful in pointing your finger!  


You only take the segment GUN and look at the segment UGN. I could take the English GUN (weapon) and shout "Fire!" Would that make them cognates?

Polat Kaya: Wrong again!  The "GUN" (a shot-gun) concept is not the same as the SUN (GUN) concept.  First there was the "GUN", that is, the SUN which created "fire" on earth.  The "fire" concept that you associated with "GUN" the rifle comes from the fact that their operation is based on something that becomes "fire". An empty "GUN" is not "fire".  So your analogy is false and is not relevant.  You are just trying some kind of sophistry hoping that I will buy it which I do not! 


Turkic GUN is semantically so different. Why would they not use something closer, like JAK, O:T, RT, or at least KAP, KAT? By the way, can you see how many candidates there might be? You even combine two or more words to form "phrases", out of which, you say, the IE words were once created. Alright then, you can take JAK plus GUN to form Sanskrit AGNIH - how easy!

Polat Kaya: I do not know where you got those words. But evidently they used GN" for the "SUN" because they were worshipping the "SUN" and for the reason why they chose the word GN" but not another word is a mystery to me also.  I know why they used the word GNESH because this Turkish word is made up from two Turkish words, namely "GN + ISHI" meaning "SUN and Light" and also "SUN and HEAT". Turkish "ISHI means "light" and "ISI" means "heat".  Probably the logic for the selection GN to mean "SUN" has been lost in the darkness of time as the age of the Turkish language goes far beyond ten thousand of years.  Surely they have called OT (OD) meaning "fire" because we have it in the Turco-Sumerian name UTU used for the ancient "SUN GOD".  The word UTU is also in the name of the Turkish "OTOMAN" (UTU-MEN) meaning the "SUN-GOD MAN".  They have used the term "O GZ" as in the name "OGUZ" for the Sun because they regarded bot the SUN and the MOON as the eyes of the universal creator Sky Father God ( GK ATA TANRI).  

Yes I use the word "phrase" or "expression" because these Turkish phrases have been used in manufacturing the so-called "Indo-European" words, otherwise there was no way on earth that your linguist could come up with those complex words if they did not use the anagrammatizing technique on Turkish expressions or phrases.  I clearly showed you this by my above given examples. Building a language independently from nothing takes thousands of years which the wondering Greeks or others did not do.  The easy way out for owning a language was to anagrammatize an existing world-wide used language which was the mono-syllabic and agglutinative language of TURKISH. 

So you see dear friend, you are far off from the source of the subject matter and are using an approach of "sophistication" rather than science. Thus please take note of that too!.


If the set of potentially comparable elements if huge enough, you will always find something. That's how probability works. Your comparison is thus almost arbitrary.




Comparisons (cf. the combinatory forms!) have shown that Turkish /kz/ (combinatory /kr-/) points to an earlier /kr-s/, hence leading to Turkic */gr/-. This form is well comparable to Tungus-Manchu /gur-/ "look, see." The /z/ is thus secondary (voicing of the /s/ after the voiced resonant /r/ > /rz/, and further disappearance of the resonant - quite wide-spread cross-linguistically, e.g. American English /course/ [kHO:Rs] vs. British English [kHO:s]).

Polat Kaya:  Nothing of the kind!  Who says that /kr-s/ was earlier than Turkish /kz/ and based on what you speak thus?  Please inform us with details. KZ and KR are both monosyllabic Turkish words.  /kr-s/ is not a monosyllabic word.  What does /kr-s/ means? I would say that "mono-syllables are far earlier than the multi-syllable words.  Bricks are earlier than the wall itself!  The rest of your explanation is just a con game and has no enlightening value. 

Furthermore, if you are comparing American English /course/ [kHO:Rs] vs. British English [kHO:s]) with Turkish KZ/GZ, I say  you are wrong again.  They have no relations with each other! First of all, there was no need to have a two vowel combimation side by side in a word spelled as "course". 

1.     Why is it written with letter C that is voiced as "K"?  The reason for it is that because it is a concocted word.  Otherwise there is no logic for its structure as given.  Incidently why letter C in some words is voiced as "K" , in some others as "C" and even in some others as "S"? Have you not noted this irrationality yourself? 

2.    Why are two vowels , that is, ou, needed while one would do perfectly well?  The reason for it must be that because it is a concocted word. 

3.    Furthermore, why do you need the vowel "e" at the end of the word which you do not even pronounce it?.  The reason for its presence is because the word itself is a concocted word. 

4.    Why do you distort an already distorted word into writing it as [kHO:Rs] or [kHO:s].  This is confusing and meaningless!


As for the IE words, you leave out the apparent cognates:


Baltic /ak-/

Slavic /ok-/

Sanskrit /ak-/

Latin /ok-/

Germanic /aug-/

Armenian /ak-/

Avestan /a-/

Tocharian /ek-/

Albanian /s/

etc. all meaning "eye" and all following regular/recursive correspondences!

Polat Kaya:    In all of these examples, one letter of the Turkish word GZ/KZ  meaning "eye" is missing.  How convenient?  I keep saying that your IE languages are artificially made up from Turkish language, but some how you and others are shying away from what I say. I get the feeling that this somehow does not go well with the "false linguistic" that you and others have learned so far. 

In Latin the word for "eye" is given as OCULUS [3, p. 171], not as /OK-/ as you point out in your above list.  Thus /OK-/ does not mean "eye", hence you are misinforming us by giving us such misleading information.  Yet when the word OCULUS is rearraned as "ULU-COS", I find the Turkish expression "ULU KZ" (ULU GZ) meaning "great eye". Incidently, the so-called "Latin" word OCULUS also means "great Eye" and it is the name of the "great hole" at the dome of the famed building called "PANTHEON" in the city of ROMA.  And that word is from the Turkish expression "ULU-KZ" meaning "Great Eye".  So you see, I give you living examples from right, left and center, yet, you try to distract me with misinformation.  In this regard, please see my paper on PANTHEON at url

In Germanic, you will find the Turkish "GZ" in the word "ZEUGE" or "ZEUGIN" meaning "witness".  An "eye witness" is someone who saw an event with his own eyes, that is, "GZ" in Turkish. This fact is well disguised in the German word "ZEUGE" or "ZEUGIN" which includes Turkish word GZ in a disguised form and backwards.  Even German word "AUGE" meaning "eye", if the letter "Z" was not droped, the word would be an anagrammatized form of the Turkish word "GZ O".  The anagrammatizer knows how to hide what he is taking from Turkish source. 

In Sanskrit there are many words related to "eye" in some way, all have Turkish GZ (KZ) in distributed form. Here is a sample of them from an online Sanskrit dictionary:

saksat (p. 341) [ sa½aksh&asharp;t ] ab. [aksha, eye] ad. with one's own eyes (C.); (before one's eyes), evi dently, actually, clearly (V., C.); in person, in bodily form (C.); directly (C.): with kri, see with one's own eyes, realise; -bh, appear in person; -kra, m. perception, realisation.
saksin (p. 341) [ sa½aksh-in ] m., n-, f. eye-witness, observer, witness (in court), of (g., lc., --&degree;); m. subject (in phil.; opp. object).
The Sanskrit word "AKSHA" meaning "eye", when rearranged as "KASH-A", is an anagrammatized form of Turkish word "KZ" (GZ). Incidently, the word KASH in Turkish is also the"eye-brow".  

So you see there are two many verbal "witnesses" that the Indo-European languages are made up from Turkish. 


You will be surprised, perhaps, but there are promising parallels of the IE */okW-/ "eye."


Namely, Altaic */uk'u/ "understand, look into" > Turkic */uk-/ "understand > hear," could interest you.

Polat Kaya:  As I mentioned above, please let us not chop off parts of words and then present them as the source which they are not.  Your IE */okW-/ "eye.", Altaic */uk'u/ "understand, look into" > Turkic */uk-/ "understand > hear," are all concoctions and distractions.  Let us not con each other and everyone else also with this kind of aberrations. Seeing, hearing, understanding are totally different concepts although they all help us in understanding things. The word that you are trying to present with these words is very much the Turkish word "OKU" meaning "read, write, learn, understand, go to school, etc." which is the essence of "schooling" in any subject.  Please, in giving examples, let us maake sure that we understand what we are talking about.  Please separate your apples from your oranges!!!. 




Your comparison to Turkish KAFAL is quite problematic. Again, you totally omit the closest relatives of the Baltic word: Slavic */golva/ (!), Germanic */kull-/, Armenian /glu-x/ (notice also Latin /calva/, problematic for phon. reasons).


As for Turkish KAFAL, there are much more promising parallels:


IE *g'hebh[a]l- "top, head" gave rise to Tocharian A /Spa:l/ (Btw. notice the strong difference in phonetics! This phonological rule is regular, the palatalized velar *g'h, when followed by *e, is palatalized further to the fricative /S/ in TA), through the various intermediate stages to the English word "gable", AND, which will be of some interest to you, Old Greek /kephala/ "head, main."

Polat Kaya:  There are parallels because they are from Turkish source.  That is why we are having parallels.  Additionally, there was no "TOCHARIAN" as has been falsely concocted, just like the other names, by total disinformation. Some groups of wanderers come to the land of Turks in Central Asia, and while they are there, they change the names into non-Turkish formats as in the name "TOCHARIAN", and go away and claim a bogus  "Indo-European" entity such as "TOCHARIAN". How clever and insincere! That is stealing the land and the name of the host country by way of altering the names.  How easy it is.  When the nameTOCHARIAN is arranged letter-by-letter as "TORC-HAN-AI" or "TARK-HAN OI", we find the Turkish expression "TRK HAN Y" meaning "Home of the Lord TURK". This describes in clear terms whose land they were calling "TOCHARIAN".  This is a linguistic dishonesty and stealing from the Turkish people and their civilization. Evidently this was a tradition with some wandering groups. 

Please note that even your "Tocharian A /Spa:l/" has Turkish word "PASh" (BASh) meaning "head" in it, only it is all garbled into a non-recognizable state. Even the Latin word "CAPUT" meaning "head' is nothing but disguised Turkish descriptive word "KAFATU" meaning "it is head" where letter "F" has been changed into "P".   


Turkish KAFAL strongly resembles the Greek dialectal forms and I personally think Turkish borrowed this word therefrom. That is the first scenario.

Polat Kaya:  You are wrong again!  "KAFAL" is not Turkish but "KAFA" or "KAFALI" is Turkish!.  For your information, the ancient Greeks were a wandering group who had no language and civilization of their own.  They spoke Turkish initially and later they manufactured their "GREEK" language from Turkish of the Turanians. In Turkish "GIRIK" means "broken" and that is what the "GREEK" language is, that is, it is a language made up from "broken" turkish words and phrases.  Of course, in this regard "Greek" is not the only IE language that has done it.  All IE languages have been made up in the same way.  The "Greek" words that I have given in this writing are testimony to that fact. So let us not use something that does not have credibility as an "original" or "authentic" language.  Thus KAFA and/or KAFALI does not belong to Greek. 

The Turkish word KAFA is as old as the King name KHUFU of ancient Masar (MISIR) which is also the name of the great PYRAMID of named after "KHUFU" or alternatively "Greek" CHEOPS (KHEOPS).   The name that has been read as "KHUFU" actually is the Turkish word "KAFA" (KHAFA / GAFA) meaning "head".  The King KHUFU was the head of the ancient Turanian Masar State. The Great Pyramid at Giza was built for king KHUFU (KAFA).  The human KAFA (head) is also the "king" of the human body as well as the body of any living being. So this ancient king who ruled ancient Masar between 2589-2566 (or 2590-2567 B. C.) carried this Turkish word as his title.  Thus the name has nothing to do with the Greeks.  

The Great Pyramid is also known as CHEOPS (KHEOPS). When the name KHEOPS is rearranged as "KE-POSH", I find the Turkish expression "YEKE BASH" (EKE BASH, YEKE KAFA, AGA BASH) meaning "The Great Head".  The Great Pyramid of  KHEOPS is indeed a "Great Head" (EKE KAFA) rising like a "great stone hill" (stone mountain) in the middle of north African desert.   The "Pyramid" is a "hill", "a head" that has been artificially put up as a monument for the name of a great king named KHUFU (KAFA, GAFA) in ancient Masar falsely called "Egypt" meaning "Gypsy". The ancient Masarians were not "Gypsy" people.  The Turkish word TEPE means the "human head" and also a "hill", the "top of a mountain" or the "top of anything".  Even the word PYRAMID, when rearranged as "DIPA-RYM", is a form of the Turkish expression "TEPE-eRUM" meaning "I am Top Man" and alternatively, "I am the head of man".  Thus the name KAFA (KHUFU) is an ancient Turkish name contrary to all the misleading information that have been fed to the public. 

>The following KHUFU related information is from url:
"Khufu (in 
Greek known as Χεωψ, Cheops) was a Pharaoh of Ancient Egypt's Old Kingdom. He reigned from around 2589 BC to 2566 BC. Khufu was the second pharaoh of the Fourth Dynasty. He is generally accepted as being the builder of the Great Pyramid of Giza, the only one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World still standing."


Another option is the opposite direction. Since Turkic (not mentioning Turkish) is younger than IE, the source would be certainly pre-Turkic. There is, however, Turkish /kabak/, dial. /kabag/ (its meaning being "forehead", "front part", "face", "skull" etc.), but not /kafa-l/. Among the Turkic languages, the phonetically closest forms are Uzbek /qOvOq/, Uighut /qawaq/, both meaning "eyelid" (not head!), Sary-Yughur /qavaq/ meaninf "nose-bridge" (not head!). All these forms point to common Turkic *K(i)amak / *K(i)apak (the final velar being an integral part), pointing to PA *kjamp'a "top, head". Hence, this option is possible for the Altaic-to-IE direction of the borrowing, but the source would be Pre-Turkic. On the other hand, it does not explain the strange phonetics of the Turkish word, thus, in my opinion, the direction would be Altaic -> IE -> Greek -> Turkish, if at all.

Polat Kaya:
  I do not buy your statement that "Since Turkic (not mentioning Turkish) is younger than IE".  On the contrary, Turkish is a much older language than any of the Indo-European and Semitic languages and even others contrary to all the disinformation that have been spread by the "linguists" and "historians".There was no IE  languages before they were cleverly but dishonestly manufactured from Turkish. Some cabalistic so-called "godly" groups masterminded their "invention" from Turkish. They did it. and conned the rest of the world!  Dear friend, I am afraid the whole ancient history of the world and of the world languages will have to be rewritten.  What has been taught to us as ancient history and languages have lost all of their credibility as I have demonstrated with unlimited examples showing that fact.  

Unfortunately, you do not know Turkish or even if you know it, you do not know it well.  Turkish word KAFA, being the complete "head", includes  
Turkish /kabak/, dial. /kabag/ (its meaning being "forehead", "front part", "face", "skull" etc. that you list. That is why you do not find the word KAFA in your list.  In Turkish KAFA is the "total head". On the other hand, Turkish word KAFALI means "with head" because that final suffix "-LI" means "with".  As you know, Turkish is an "agglutinative" language and the root words are joined with suffixes in making longer words that describe much complex meanings. 

With respect to the Turkish word KAFALI, let me give you the following example:  There is the "Greek" word "KEPHALOPODAN" (CEPHALO-PODAN) meaning "cephalopod" [1, p. 165] which is the name given to squids, cuttlefishes and octopuses. But when this word  "KEPHALOPODAN" is rearranged as "KEPHALO-DOPAN", we find that it is nothing but a distorted and disguised form of the Turkish expression "KAFALU-DABAN" meaning "foot with head". You may know that these animals indeed have their arms (or foot) coming out of their head, or alternatively, their feet are joined with their head.  Thus this IE generated name has been manufactured using this fact.  This is to say that the "semantics" (Turkish "sz mantiki") of the word is based on this observed fact. Thus the "KEPHALO" part of this so-called "Greek" word is nothing but the Turkish word "KAFALU" (KAFALI). Actually, the name could have been "DABANLU KAFA" aso meaning "head with foot" rather than "KAFALU DABAN" (KEPHALOPODAN).  Turkish word DABAN (TABAN) means "foot, the lowest part of the body on which we stand".  Greek linguists have anagrammatized this Turkish word into "PODAN" and finally into "POD" meaning "foot".  Clever but dishonest!

It must also be noted that  in manufacturing IE names for concepts, concept is described first in Turkish with Turkish words and then, afterwards the decided-upon Turkish text is anagrammatized into so-called "Indo-European" languages.  The "Greek" word "KEPHALOPODAN" has also been made up in the same manner.  

Furthermore, it seems that you are confusing KABAK (KABAG) meaning "front" with Turkish KAPAK meaning "lid" and KAFA meaning "head".  Please note that conceptually KAPAK is something different than the concept of KAFA (TEPE, BASh).  
KAPAK is something that covers something else, such as  "EYE LID" is the "GZ KAPAGI" in Turkish which covers the eye.  Hence KAFA and KAPAK are totally different concepts.  Although it can be argued that "head" (kafa) also covers the "body", but then, this is stretching the "comparison" concept too much. Thus, I say, one cannot compare them just because one is KAFA and the other is KAPAK. Your comparisons are not valid. The English LID corresponds to Turkish "KAPAK".

I am sorry to say that I cannot agree on any one of your examples as being correct.  Unfortunately, you are chasing the wrong things.  I do not belame you because it the "linguistics" that has misguided you and everyone else in the wrong direction because they want to cover up with sophistry the a fact that TURKISH is the source for IE and Semitic languages.  


Kartvelian has */q'ua/, which seems to be borrowed from IE, anyway.


IE has been in contact with Semitic languages, and there are, indeed, some very interesting parallels.

Polat Kaya:  As I have been saying over and over again, the SEMITIC languages are also in the same boat as the IE languages.  They are all made up from the mother language of TURKISH.  Your IE and Semitic languages may have had mutual contact, but that does not make them earlier than the Turkish.  The model for them all was Turkish. 


*gabh-(at-) "forehead, front" is really similar to the IE word, but again, it might be a source for the IE form, but not directly for Turkish (nor is it possible that it is a Turkish loan - see the individual daughter languages).


On the other hand - and that is the third possibility for the origin of Turkish /kafa-l/ - there is Semitic */k'apy-/ "occiput, back of the head" > Arabic /k'afaN/.


As it appears to me, Turkish /kafa-l/ is certainly not native. By the way, why would you not use, for example, Turkish /baS/ instead? The answer is simple: because it doesn't suite your scheme.

Polat Kaya:  I explained all of these just above.  Please read again. 


I'm afraid your work, doctor Kaya, is just like a stone mosaic. You have a picture on the one side, and a pile of stone on the other side. You take a hammer to shape the stones to fit the various corners and curves of your picture. To make the work easier, you search for such stones that would not need so much hammer-work. The pile is so huge, that you almost always find suitable stones. Moreover, every flat stone has two sides - two possible shapes. That doubles the number of shapes and increases the probability of finding what fits the scheme.

Polat Kaya:  I am afraid your analogy is not correct, that is, a false "sophistry" although it made me to smile.  First of all with respect to IE words, there is no "mosaic" of a picture that as one may find on the cover page of riddle game.  What we have are confused words, that is, a totally confused puzzle-parts or pieces that one finds in a puzzle box, that is, they are all mixed up in a pile called "IE" words with watered down meanings hazy meanings assigned to those gobbledegook pile of "stones".  Using the given meaning as "guide", I put the pieces in the right order and come up with the Turkish expression that describes the concept of the riddled word and was used in manufacturing the IE word.  That is the beauty of what I am doing!

In other words, I am putting the picture back to its original form in Turkish which has been intentionally broken, restructured and Hellenized, Romanized, Anglicized, Akkadinized, Semitized, etc,  in a totally wrong way by some  cabalistic "linguists".  And, I do that restructuring of a shapeless pile of "stones" back into their original "mosaic" form not with a hammer, but rather with the delicate surgical hand and sharp eye-sight of a master linguist that the kind of which you have never seen before. I am sure this you and the rest of the "linguist" will come to cheerfully accept some day!   


The problem is, that all those stones are greyish. Your picture is monochromatic and the observers can only see the shape, the sillhouette. They can only guess what the picture means, the colours and contours are missing. Your methods permanently fail to achieve what they are targeted at. That's my personal view and I will not force you believe it.

Polat Kaya:  Please read my response above.


The historical comparative method is very much like the well-known puzzle pictures that we buy to our children, or even ourselves. Every single piece has its own place and if you put it elsewhere you will never rebuild the picture or photograph.

Polat Kaya:  The IE words are the puzlled, garbled mass that you find when you open the puzzle box.  I put them back in the order that they should have been.  Your "historical comparative method" compares things that have already been confused and are out of their previous shape.  When you compare wrong things with each other, the resulting conclusion will also be wrong.  But "human mind" is so versatile that , with the right sophistry, it can acccept anything as "valid". 

Let me give you an example.  Linguistically, the word "TRANSLATE" literally means to turn an expression given in one language into another. In other words, conceptually, it is a way of  "explaining" a concept defined in one language into a format in another language. When the word TRANSLATE is rearranged as "TERS-ANLAT", we find the Turkish expression "TERS ANLAT" meaning "explain in a wrong way or in opposite way" which is the fact of the concept.  When a translator "translates" a word that one knows into some other form that one does not understands nor recognizes. The translated second form is indeed the "wrong" (ters) one with respect to the original one. But mind accepts it very readily.  Even the word TRANSLATOR is from Turkish expression "TERS ANLATOR" meaning "he/she explains it wrong or in opposite". 

If two persons, A and B, each knowing only one language, that is their own mother tongue, can have a translator who knows the languages of A and B and can act as translator between A and B.  However, A and B will never know whether the translator is saying the right thing or the wrong thing since they will not be able to have an independent assessment of the translation.  They are at the mercy of the translator. It is because the "translator" converts what is said into an opposing format, that is, as explaine by the Turkish expression "TERS ANLATOR".


Your method is more like LEGO. Yes, if you have enough material, you can build whatever you like. There is some system, of course (some segments cannot be bound to all the bits, but only to a specific type of them), but it allows for so much creativity! Its use is simply arbitrary. Do you want to build a house? Then build one. What about a car? Why not build one?

Polat Kaya:  Your analogy is wrong again!  It is true that one can build many different forms with a given LEGO set.  But they will not give you the right format if the set does not contain the parts that you are looking for. You cannot build a car or a house when you do not have the right parts in a given pile of pieces. Because, in your pile of pieces, the original object has been dismantled and even some of the pieces are removed from the pile.  Thus, You cannot build the right car or the houe if the given set is for something else.




Let me list the IE cognates first:


Sanskrit /vira-/

Avestan /vi:ra/

Germanic /wir-/

Latin /vir/

Old Irish /fer/


I don't know how anyone can dispute the validity of the IE language family's existence.

Polat Kaya:  For your information the source of all these so-called IE words is the Turkish word ER maning "MAN" the rest are just wrapping to disguise the Turkish source. I hope you will see this fact as the source of your Indo-European" language dilemma?


The IE word */(H)wi:ro-/ "man" really seems to be a cognate of the Altaic */jo:re/ "man, male", Uralic */urV/ "man" & */ir-ke ~ r-ke/ "son, boy", Kartvelian Xwir- "male". The Uralic compound has formal parallels in the Altaic family: Turkic */er-kek/, Mongolic */(h)r-eGe/.

Polat Kaya: I noted above Turkish ER being the source.  


There is thus absolutely no point in arguing that the IE languages borrowed in any way the Turkic word. It is actually rather amateurish and typical of your fuzzy methodology.

Polat Kaya: Excuse me for a second please.  I am afraid you are confused badly!!! I would not use the term "borrowed", but I would rather use the term "STOLE" because when things are borrowed, they are not altered.  They are kept in their original form so that you have to return them back to its real owner.  If you keep the borrowed thing in an altered form and claime it as your own, then the object is different from its original form and ownership.  This resulting state of the things can be much better described by the term STEALING rather than borrowing.  The IE languages did not borrow, but rather they stole the words and phrases of Turkish language in manufacturing words for the so-called "Indo-European" languages.  The difference between these concepts is as distinct as the day and noght!. So let us not use sophistry to con the world.  The world people have already been conned sufficiently 

Furthermore, what I show you and all others are very exact for each word rather than being 
"amateurish and fuzzy methodology". The difficulty is that "STEALING" of the Turkish language has been done in a rather sophisticated manner such that the userper has got away with murder.


It is so time-consuming to comment on every word you compare to Turkish that I will not go on with the Baltic list now (if you wish and insist on that, I will do that for you, of course). In brief, most of the words you have offered are only look-alikes, others are loanwords (especially IE-to-Turkish ones), some are old Altaic-IE (i.e. Nostratic) cognates, the rest is explainable through other interlingual borrowings.


As to the comments on the quotations from the EHL/ToB databases, in vast majority of cases you show excellent powers of a folk-etymologist. Folk etymology means that a word is explained by means of an arbitrary segmentation, these arbitrary segments are then compared to existing standalone forms from within the language, and the word is thereby "explained" (i.e. actually misanalyzed). Again, I could show this word by word, but that would take a whole month - if you still insist on it, I will do that for you, too.

Polat Kaya: "FOLK ETHYMOLOGY" term is another concoction invented by the linguists to cover up the "stolen material" as if they know the subject much more than anyone else.  In this regard they are very shallow indeed but do not want to appear so to rest of us.  I find that the so-called "linguistically" correct "etymologies" given in IE dictionaries are totally false since they do not give the true source of the listed IE words as being from Turkish. Evidently, it is better to cover up rather thaan to show the whole truth. 


A few representative examples of your misleading approach:


[1] If you learnt something about Tokharians, you would know the oldest Turkic (!) mention calls them twqry. There was no "restructuring." To see how "indoeuropeanish" Tocharian is, please, look at


[2] You are constantly calling Turkish "the perfect language," but there is no such thing as a perfect language. Your turkocentric nationalist bias is alarming.


Languages change and evolve. The common circular developements are (for instance):



Polat KAYA:  Let me tell you as a starter. The so-called TOKHARIAN word SAS meaning "one" is nothing but the distorted form of the Turkish word "AS" meaning "one".  This Turkish word is also stolen into the Latin. I will not go throught the rest of the list as my writing is getting very long.  But please take note of it.  

I looked at your reference and I give part of it below for readers to see.

>From url :
Tocharian or Tokharian is one of the most obscure branches of the group of 
Indo-European languages. The name of the language is taken from people known to the Greek historians (Ptolemy VI, 11, 6) as the Tocharians (Greek: Τόχαροι, "Tokharoi"). These are sometimes identified with the Yuezhi and the Kushans, while the term Tokharistan usually refers to 1st millennium Bactria. A Turkic text refers to the Turfanian language (Tocharian A) as twqry. Interpretation is difficult, but F. W. K. Mller has associated this with the name of the Bactrian Tokharoi. In Tocharian, the language is referred to as arish-kna and the Tocharians asarya.
Polat Kaya:  Here is the explanations for some of the things given in this citing: 

The Greek word TOKHAROI is an altered word from Turkish as their language is.  TOKHAROI, when rearranged as "TORK-HOI-A" is the Turkish name "TURK Y O" meaning "it is home of TURK" which is exactly where the so-called TOKHAROI is located geographically. So the name of Turk and his home in Turkistan has been stolen in broad-daylight!!

The name YUEZHI has the Turkish suffix CHI at its end.  Thus the name is from a Turkish name.  The name YUEZHI, in the form "EYZHI U" is the Turkish word "AYCHI O" meaning "He is Moon believer".  So the name is stolen from Turkish again. 

The name KUSHAN is made up with two Turkish words: "KUS + HAN".  The first name is a synonym with the Turkish word GUZ and OGUZ which is the name of Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples.  The word HAN means "Lord" which has been borrowed in all languages in a variety of formats.  So this name is also indicative of the Turkish people rather than any concocted Indo-European name.  

As for the name of TWQRY, it is an altered form of the Turkish expression "TURQ O" (TURK O) meaning "he is Turk".  So this also identifies those so-called TOKHARIANS as Turkish people rather than IE people.  The bogus letter W which represents U, V and Y in many combinations of two letters, is an Indo-European invention used in altering and disguising the usurped words and W is not a Turkish letter.  Evidently the unsuspecting Turk took the altered name TWQRY restrucrured from "TURK O" and used it in his writing.  Using your own logic that you give below in the form
 RO + DE + NA > RODEN > ROND > RON > RO, where we note how the letters D and N in the word RODEN were artificially interchanged, we see that the same alteration has also taken place in the case of "TURQ O".  The positions of the letters R and Q have been changed into making the word TUQRO and then into TWQRY, thus alienating the word further from its Turkish source.    

Finally the the name TOKHARISTAN is nothing but the restructured, disguised and usurped form of the Turkish word "TORKISTAN" (TURKISTAN) which is still the home of Turks in Central Asia.  As usual even then Turks had not suspected this quick hand movements of the wanderers in altering host peoples' names.

Evidently the wanderers had a tradition of stealing everyting from the host country by way of altering the names and the language of the host people wherever they went.  This is what happened in the case of TOKHARIANS. The ancient history has been fully altered by lies and disinformation by ancient wanderers.  Evidently, countless number of people, including those who deal with "languages" have been well conned.   

Furthermore you said: 

[2] You are constantly calling Turkish "the perfect language," but there is no such thing as a perfect language. Your turkocentric nationalist bias is alarming.

Polat Kaya:  Some very prominent European writers have admitted Turkish as being the perfect language. Turkish is indeed a language which is more perfect than many.  Unfortunately, many people, including many Turks, do not know this fact about it or know but do not want to admit it because of their own reasons.  Of course those who do not know this fact are not in a position to appreciate it. Turkish is a monosyllabic language in which all syllables act as building bricks.  That is why other languages have used those "linguistic building blocks" to describe and define words that they manufactured from Turkish for their new languages.  

As for your villifying statements, it is unfortunate that you have such a distorted view of me.  But I can understand your position.  Because vilification, putdown and shouting down are the final words of those who have used all of their marbles of "knowledge" to throw at me, that is, when they have noting meaningfull to say, they resort to a shouting and putdown strategy.  This you also proved to be this case as well.  I say that please, you do not have to worry or alarmed about "my Turkocentric nationalist bias" because I do not have "Turkocentric nationalist bias' against any one language or people or towards Turks or Turkish.  I am interested in finding and showing the "truth" about the make up of languages and how they have become as they are at present. In this regard, only one thing that I have above you and probably many others is that I know this subject better than anyone of you "linguists". I think that is what is bothering you.  In stead of villifying me, if you had pay close attention to what I am saying, you would indeed benefit from it.  But it is your choice how you evaluate what I am saying. It is up to you.  

You have made reference to CCVCC > CVC > CV
  as if CCVCC is a legitimate word or syllable. In this structure CC is not a syllable.  For example, note that TR is not a legitimate syllable, but TAR, TER, TIR, TUR, etc. are proper syllables.  So those "linguists" who shorthen these syllables into TR are playing games and are not truthful.  CCVCC is an altered and wrapped form of CVC which is a true syllable. Thus CCVCC is misleading and also disinformation.  Of cource, CCVCC can be reduced to CVC because CCVCC is bogus to start with. Furthermore, by reducing CVC to CV you are falsifying the nature of  both syllables, that is, CVC and CV are both syllables on their own.  Dropping the final C in CVC totally alters the meaning of the syllable CVC.  However this action has been used in Indo-European and Semitic languages in altering and disguising an usurped word or phrase. Hence, CCVCC > CVC > CV is a falsifying technique. 






The evolution can well be circular:


Complex > Simpler > Simple & (Simple + Simple + Simple) > More complex > Complex > Simpler > Simple etc...







Polat Kaya:  I diasagree with you! You cannot  start with KA + SA + TA > KASAT meaning one thing and ending gradually  > KAST > KAT > KA meaning the same thing.  That would be total dishonesty.  Don't kid yourself and the rest of us too!  Similarly, you cannot  start with RO + DE + NA > RODEN having a certain meaning and then later on change it into > ROND > RON > RO and say that RO means the same thing as RODEN or RODENA of course unless you are not truthful to yourself and to the structure of the words.  RO does not come from RODENA.  Hovever, RODENA may come from RO providing that you defin RO as the root word with a meaning and also the DE and NA as suffixes having certaing meanings.  Without that you are totally dancing in the daark.  Your broadbrush construction is not convincing, however, it gives permission to anagrammatising of a model language.  That is what has been done in converting Turkish words and phrases into the words of so-called "Indo-European" and "Semitic" languages. 

All of these are just man made concoctions inorder to cover up what has taken place in coming up the so-called IE languages from the mother/father language of Turkish. The nature of things is not using the permutations in a haphasard way as you are doing. The syllables of natural language is V, VC, CV, CVC, and VCV and the remaining longer formats are just combinations of these basic building blocks with proper suffixes as in Turkish. 




KA + RO + LO > KARLO > ... etc. ...


These processes are observable synchronically!


You say I cannot brush away what you say. Well, Mr. Kaya, unfortunately I can. Yes, as you see, I genuinely took those comparisons of yours and analyzed them. I believe that what I showed was your false reasoning.

Polat Kaya:  Dear friend I appreciate your effort that you spend in trying to prove me wrong. But I am afraid you have not achived that objective of yours as I have counter-responded to all of your false arguments.  It was a nice try anyway on your part and I appreciated that.  

Dear Rebb.  Making a language from nothing takes a very long time.  But making a language from an already existing and established language is just a play or game and it is done in a very short time.  The Turanian language of Turkish has taken thousands of years to build and circulate.  It has mathematical accuracy.  The words and expressions of this model language has been altered and restructured in order to come up with the IE and Semitic languages. I agree that those who did it were indeed very clever participants of the game, but that does not change the fact what they did was stealing of an ancient language and the civilization that the words and phrases of that language described.  


Please, let me know if you want me to react on the rest of your comments. If so, that will take some time, I'm afraid.


Have nice days.





Polat Kaya:    If you like we can continue this discussion.  But I see no real reason to pursue further this conversation as I have answered all of your misleading and/or misunderstood explanations.  In concluding, I want to bring to your and also other readers' attention that the words of the Indo-European languages acting as names to different concepts are "concept definitions" first formulated in Turkish and then were anagrammatized into a broken and restructured format. The term  "inflected" languages were invented to cover up this fact of endless usurpation from Turkish language.

You too have nice days.

Sincerely yours and best wishes to you and to all, 

Polat Kaya

Mar 2, 2007


1.    Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth edition, 1947, Springfield, Mass., U.S.A.

2.     Divry's Modern English - Greek and Greek - English Desk Dictionary, D. C. Divry, Inc., Publshers, New York, 1988.
3.     Cassell's Compact Latin - English English - Latin Dictionary, 1962.

Polat Kaya <tntr@COMPMORE.NET> wrote:

Dear Dr. Rebbutri Mamsam Isheppu (Rebb),

Welcome to our group. Your participation is appreciated.  

I went through your posting below.  My comments are as follows:

I must say that you have done an admirable job of collecting all of those words and putting them under different labels.  This is all very well and useful if we wanted to compare presently existing words.  The listings from your references compare words of different languages and try to put them into an order using their visual written appearances. It is just like comparing the "leaves" of plants visually and then making judgements and classifications about them. Surely, this is one way of comparing them but my comparisons go much deeper than this approach.  I go to the heart of the words and search kinship in the structural make up of the words (together with their given definitions) with Turkish words and phrases. I must point out that linguists, in their present comparison methods do not consider the following facts that:

1.     there has been anagramatization of Turkish words and phrases in the formation of words for IE and 
       Semitic languages.  
2.    there has been "linguistic wrapping" in the formation of words for different IE and Semitic languages.

3.    there has been further subdivision in the manufactured words for some languages such as cutting off the 
       front end of much longer manufactured words and using the front segment as a representative of the 
       larger word or as a word with a new assigned meaning. 
4.    there has been alterations of the letter(s) in the words and phrases of the model language in making 
       words for a newly manufactured language.

Because of these very important language affecting considerations that the linguists have not included in their studies, their method of comparing words of languages is lacking and superficial. Hence it cannot give the correct results. In fact it does not even touch the fact that some of these languages have been manufactured.  Inspite of this fact, their artificiality is overlooked and they are regarded as if they were genuine languages. Therefore, and in view of all these, what I do and propose and what linguists have been doing and proposing are totally different things.  While linguists compare words of established languages, as these words appear in their present formats, I, in my way of analyzing words, examine and compare their makeup with respect to the words and phrases of the model language of Turkish and their definitions.  The guide for my examinations of the IE and and Semitic words is their meanings and the concepts that they represent and define. 

Furthermore, I do not use confusing jargon and artificial labeling of morphemes such as with asterisks - as linguists are doing.  They are comparing particles from the present languages with some imaginary so-called "proto" words marked with asterisks that are not really known.  This is guess work. It gives the impression that in order to coverup the linguistic reality of languages having been manufactured from Turkish, it is sending most of the honest linguists on a wild goose chase.  

Let me repeat one of my earler examples again.  The Latin word NOCTURNUS meaning "night, nightly" turns out to have been made up from the Turkish expression "KUNUN TERSI" meaning "opposite of day" - which the night is. This is an undeniable exact definition in Turkish of this so-called "Latin" word NOCTURNUS.  Now in view of this finding, would you, as a linguist and a scientist who wants to find the truth, not ask, why am I finding these exact Turkish correspondences inside IE words? Do they not intrigue your curiosity?  Don't you think that you should be looking at the findings of Polat Kaya objectively and more seriously?  Yet you are bringing forward what linguists have done so far (which I question strongly) and trying to force me to accept their explanations as if they were correct. Why should I abandon my enlightening approach and accept their misleading approach? 

In my previous posting I noted that OCTO and LACTE were cut-off front ends of much larger words made up from Turkish.  You did not dwell on these very important evidences that I gave.  Instead of discussing how this could have happened, you provided a long list of words that can be used for other purposes.  Regarding your list I have written my comments in blue within your list.  They are very relevant to the subject, I hope you will carefully note them.

This is all I have to say about your listed words at this time.  Please know that I am not denying the usefulness of your listed words.  In fact, using the references that you kindly provided us, ( I quickly made a small list myself which I am going to share with you below. 

As a sample, I viewed the 100 word-list of Lithuanian language, compiled by Sergei Starostin under the title of "Indo-European" and "Baltic Etymology". I selected some of the words from that 100 word-list and here they are with my analyses.  The red entries are the ones taken from the original list.  The comments in blue are mine: 

fire Lithuanian: ugn-s Lettish: uguns;    
When UGNIS is rearranged as "GUNIS", I find the Turkish word "GUNESh" meaning "sun" which certainly is fire. Even if their word was UGNI, I would find the Turkish word GUN meaning "sun" in it which is again fire. 

Word: eye Lithuanian: ak-s  Lettish: acs ;     
When AKIS is rearranged as "KAIS", and when ACS is rearranged as CAS, I find a form of the Turkish word "GZ" / "KZ" meaning "eye". So this Turkish word is embedded in these two words.  

Word: head Lithuanian: galv Lettish: gal^va Yatvingian: kalfa  
When GALVA and KALFA  are rearranged as "KAFA-L", I find a form of the Turkish word "KAFA" meaning "HEAD" in them.

Word: man Lithuanian: vī́ras Lettish: vi^rs; vīrietis       
I find a form of the Turkish word ER meaning "man" and ERIS, ERIZ meaning "we are man". 

Word: see Lithuanian: regḗti Lettish:       
I find a form of the Turkish word  GOR-TI  meaning "it is seeing" and "he/she/it saw".

Word: smoke Lithuanian: dū́mai Lettish: dũmi         
I find a form of the Turkish word DUMAN meaning "smoke". 

sun Lithuanian: sulē Lettish: saũle Yatvingian: sala  
I find a form of the Turkish word "AL-AZ O" meaning "it is peerless AL (Red)" referring to "AL" God which is the Sun.  Additionally, I find the Turkish word "ALAZ O"(ALAV/ALEV O, ATASh O) meaning "it is fire, it is flame" which the Sun is. 

Word: tooth Lithuanian: dants Lettish: zobs Yatvingian: dontis        
When DONTIS is rearranged as "DISNT-O", I find a form of the Turkish word "DISiNTi O" meaning "it is your tooth". 

Word: warm Lithuanian: il̃tas Lettish: slts       
When rearranged as "ISTAS-L", I find a form of the Turkish word "ISITISH" meaning "it is heating".  In the form "ISTALS", I find the Turkish word "ISITILISh" meaning "it is being heated".  In the form "ISTA-LS", I find a form of the Turkish word "ISiTI" meaning "it is warm", "it is heat". 

Word: water Lithuanian: vandu Lettish: u^dens Yatvingian: auu         
When the Lettish word is rearranged in the form of "SU-DE-N", I  find a form of the Turkish word "SUDU" meaning "it is water".  In the form SUDEN, I  find the Turkish word  "SUDAN" meaning "made of water".  

 we Lithuanian: mẽs Lettish: mẽs      
I find a form of the Turkish word "BIZ" meaning "we". 

Word: white Lithuanian: bltas Lettish: bal̃ts Yatvingian: baltas       
When rearranged as "BALAST", I find a form of the Turkish word "BAIAZTI" (BAYAZDI) meaning "it is white", with I to L ( l ) shift..

 woman Lithuanian: mṓter-is Lettish: sieviete Yatvingian: wirba         
When mṓter-is  is rearranged as "EMISTOR", I find a form of the Turkish word "EMISTIR" (MEMEDIR, ANADIR) meaning "she is mother. 
sieviete  is rearranged as "EV-ESITI-E", I find a form of the Turkish word "EV ESIDI O" meaning "she is housewife", that is, a woman. 
wirba is rearranged as "ARWAB", I find a form of the Turkish word "ARVAD" meaning "woman, wife".

Word: dry Lithuanian: saũsas Lettish: sus-s  
When rearranged as "SUSAS-A", I find a form of the Turkish word "SUSUZ O" or "SUSUZ" meaning "it is waterless", "it is dry", "it is without water". 

Word: green Lithuanian: lia- Lettish: zal̨   
When rearranged as "IAZAL", I find a form of the Turkish word "YAZIL" (YAShIL, YEShIL) meaning "green". 

Word: give Lithuanian: doti Lettish: duo^t Yatvingian: dodi       
When rearranged in the form of "OTIDU", I find a form of the Turkish word ODEDI  (VERDI) meaning "paid" , "gave".

Word: yellow Lithuanian: geltṓna-s Lettish: dzęl^tęns Yatvingian: zeld        
Rearranged as "AS -ELTONG" or "ES-ALTONG", I find a form of the Turkish word "AS ALTUNG"(AS ALTUN, BIR ALTUN) meaning "peerless gold" or "one gold". The color of gold (altun) being "yellow", the name "gold" also represents "yellow" colour.  

>From this short list, I have shown that the 100 word list of the IE Lithuanian language has a considerable amount of Turkishness in its nature. 

From the  Pokorny's dictionary compiled by George Starostin in the same listing with a very quick examination, I also noted these words.

Number: 3 Root: ā̆bel-, ā̆bōl-, abel- English meaning: apple German meaning: `Apfel' Material: Lat. Abella (osk. Stadt in Campanien) malifera `pfeltragend', nach Verg. Aen. 7, 740, drfte ihren Namen nach der Apfelzucht erhalten haben und auf die Grundform *ablonā zurckweisen. Der Apfel ist nicht etwa erst nach der Stadt benannt.

The sounds represented by B, P, PP and M are very related labial sounds meaning that they could be replaced with each other.  When the root words ā̆bel-, ā̆bōl-, abel are rearranged as ELBA, ALBO and ELBA respectively and replacing B with M, we get the words ELMA, ALMO, and ELMA which is the same as the Turkish word ELMA / ALMA meaning "apple".  The same can be said about German APFEL and Latin ABELLA  and even English APPLE which are all made up from Turkish ELMA and ALMALI meaning "with apple". 

Even the Latin word MALIFERA meaning "apple-bearing", when rearranged as "ALMA-FERI", we see the restructured, Romanized and disguised form of the Turkish expression "ALMA VERI" meaning "it gives apple" or "it bears apple".  Turkish ALMA is "apple" and VERI means "it gives, it bears". 

So the root for these European words meaning "apple" are definitely the Turkish word ALMA / ELMA meaning "apple" and not 
ā̆bel-, ā̆bōl-, abel  as shown above.  It is seen that linguists telling us that ā̆bel-, ā̆bōl-, abel  is the root for apple-related IE words is not correct.

Number: 12 Root: ā̆g^- English meaning: goat German meaning: `Ziegenbock, Ziege' Material: Ai. aj-ḥ `Ziegenbock', ajā́ `Ziege', mpers. azak `Ziege', npers. azg ds.;

When English GOAT is rearranged as TAGO or TAG-O, we find the Turkish word TEGE / TEKE  or TEGE O / TEKE O meaning "male goat" or" it is male goat".  So the root for "GOAT' is definitely Turkish TEGE / TEKE and not the wrongly claimed ā̆g^-

When the German word ZIEGE meaning "goat" is rearranged as "GEZIE", I find a form of the Turkish word "GEI" (KEI) meaning "goat".   So again it is a restructured form of Turkish word "GEI" (KEI) and its root is in Turkish rather than the wrongly claimed 

Number: 14 Root: ā̆g^her-, ā̆g^hen-, ā̆g^hes- (oder ōg^her usw.) English meaning: day German meaning: `Tag' Grammatical comments: Heteroklit. Neutrum. Material: Ai. harhaḥ, Gen. hn-as, av. Gen. PI. asn-ąm `Tag'. 

Inside the root word "ā̆g^her-" I find a form of the Turkish word "AGARI" meaning "becoming light" or  "becoming white"
Inside the root word "
ā̆g^hen-" I find a form of the Turkish word "AKHAN" meaning "white lord" referring to the Sun. I also find the Turkish word "AH-GUN"(AK GN)  meaning "white day", "day" or "day light".
Inside the root word "
ā̆g^hes-" I find a form of the Turkish word "AGISHI" meaning "white light"

German TAG  meaning "day" must be from Turkish "AGTI" meaning "it is white, it is light", as Sanskrit AKHTU and Turkish AKTU means "it is light, it is white, it is bright" which is the "DAY".

So all of these correspondences cannot be due to my rearrangement of these words, but rather due to somebody else having restructured them from the Turkish words and phrases in the first place.  All I am doing now is utilising the meanings of the IE words and reversing the process that was applied to the Turkish source texts in producing these IE words.

Please see my other comments below interlaced with your listing. 

rmisheppu wrote:

Dear Dr. Kaya, Dear Members,


I am still working on the lexical comparisons, but I feel I cannot leave this posting uncommented.


Let me, please, cite from the only source on Altaic languages, readily available to the public on the Internet. Although it is not flawless (some semantic matches are rather disputable), it is a monumental and pioneering work indeed. As such, it will have to be further refined, corrected and extended, of course. Nonetheless, a vast majority of etymologies presented by the authors are very likely to be correct, many others are at least promising, and only a small minority are questionable from my point of view (please, see the discussions between S. A. Starostin and A. Vovin in the past). A brief summary of the Etymological Dictionary of Altaic Languages (by Sergei Starostin, Anna Dybo and Oleg Mudrak , Brill Publishers, 2003) has been written by Professor Blazhek and can be found at the following address: (as a chapter in the e-zin 'Linguistica On-Line'). The etymological database itself can be found here:



"Night" vs. "Day"



Proto-Turkic: *gn(el) / *gunal

Meaning: 1 sun 2 day 3 sunny place 4 sun-heat

Old Turkic: kn 1, 2 (Orkh., OUygh.), kne 3 (YB), isig quja 4 (OUygh. - Br.)

Karakhanid: kn 1, 2, quja 4 (MK), kne 3 (Tefs.)

Turkish: gn 2, gne 1, (dial.) guja 1

Tatar: kn 1, 2, qoja 1

Middle Turkic: quja 1 (Sangl.Abush.Pav. C.), kne 1 (Pav. C.Abush.`ор. `ад.), kn 1, 2 (Pav. C.MA)

Uzbek: kun 1, 2, quj" 1

Uighur: kn 1, 2, (dial.) qoja 1

Sary-Yughur: kun 1, 2

Azerbaidzhan: gn 1, 2, gn 1

Turkmen: gn 1, 2, gne 1, 4, quja 1 (dial.)

Khakassian: kn 1, 2

Shor: kn 1, 2, quja 1

Oyrat: kn 1, 2, dial. quja 1 (Kumd., Leb.)

Halaj: kin, kn 1, 2, kin 'sonnig'

Chuvash: kon 2, x�ʷvel 1

Yakut: kn 1, 2, kuj̃s 'heat'

Dolgan: kn 1, kun��s 'heat'

Tuva: xn 1, 2

Tofalar: xn 1, 2

Kirghiz: kn 1, 2

Kazakh: kn 1, 2

Noghai: kn 1, 2, qɨjas 4

Bashkir: kn 1, 2, kns 4, qoja 1

Balkar: kn 1, 2

Gagauz: gn 1, 2, gne 1

Karaim: kn 1, 2, kne 1, quja, qujas 1

Karakalpak: kn 1, 2, quja 1

Salar: gǖn 1, 2

Kumyk: gn 1, 2 gne 1

CommentsVEWT 301, 309 (Rsnen separates *gn and *gun'al', which is hardly justified); EDT 679, 725, 734, ЭСТЯ 3, 100-104, 6, 112-113, Лекика 20-21, 64-65, 77-78, Федотов 1 306-307, Stachowski 161, 164. The forms *gn�el� and *gun�al� must be old dialectal variants.

Polat Kaya:    *gn'al'  must be the form of Turkish "AL GN" meaning "red sun".  "AL GN"(GN AL)  is the name of Sun in ancient Turanian religious concept.  Even the present name ALLAH and the ancient name BAAL come from that ancient Turanian source. 




Proto-Mongolian: *gegeɣe < *geɣeɣe

Meaning: dawn, daylight

Written Mongolian: gege(n), gegege(n) (L 373)

Middle Mongolian: gegejen (HY 53, SH), gegen (SH), geji- 'to become light' (SH), gign (MA)

Khalkha: gege(n)

Buriat: gege(n)

Kalmuck: gen, gegɛ̄n

Ordos: gege(n)

Baoan: gegaŋ

Dagur: gegen (Тод. "аг. 131, MD 149), geji- 'to get light (about the sky)' (MD 149)

Monguor: g�gen (SM 132)

Comments: KW 132, 135, MGCD 290.



Polat Kaya:  Turkish "GN", meaning "day" or "daytime" as well as "sun", is present with some linguistic wrapping in the above words. 


Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *gian�am

Meaning: dawn

Evenki: ge^wan

Even: gǟwụn

Negidal: ge^wan

Ulcha: Ge^wa(n)

Orok: Ge^wa(n)

Nanai: Gịwã

Oroch: gǟawan

Udighe: ge^wa

Comments: ТМС 1, 145. The reflexes match almost exactly those of *mian�am 'heart', which makes us reconstruct *gian�am with a later assimilative development > *giawan. Cf. perhaps also Jurch. gen-gien 'light, clear' = Man. geŋg�en, SMan. giŋiN id. (a contamination with PTM *geŋg- 'clean, clear'? - or the same root?), see ТМС 1, 177.



Polat Kaya:  Turkish "GN", meaning "day" or "daytime" as well as "sun", is present with some linguistic wrapping in the above words. 


Proto-Korean: *ku�i

Meaning: dawn

Modern Korean: hk:wi

Middle Korean: hă�is-ku�i

Comments: Nam 484, KED 1815.




Proto-Japanese: *ka(i)

Meaning: day, period of time

Old Japanese: ke

Comments: The root is also attested as a suffixed -ka (patu-ka '20 days', itu-ka '5 days' etc.), see JLTT 430, 448.






Proto-Altaic: *gi̯òjn�u

Meaning: dawn, daylight

Turkic: *gn(el) / *gunal

Mongolian: *gegeɣe < *geɣeɣe

Tungus-Manchu: *gian�am

Korean: *ku�i

Japanese: *ka(i)

Comments: Лекика 78, Doerfer MT 143. Cf. also Mong. geji- 'to dawn' (KW 137), proving that *geɣe- < *geje-. The Korean form points to a cluster with *-j-, therefore a reconstruction *gi̯òjnu (with subsequent assimilative palatalization -jn- > -jn�-) is perhaps more plausible; cf. also the variation *n/*n� in PT. The Jpn. reflex is somewhat problematic: loss of final resonant here may be explained by a standard development before a velar suffix (*ka < *gi̯òjn(u)-gV, cf. Mong. *gege-ɣe, Man. geŋ-g�e); but one would rather expect a PJ form like *ku(i). The irregular vowel may be due to contraction, cf. a similar case in PJ *ka� 'mosquito' < PA *kune.




Whether we adhere to the Indo-Uralic, Ural-Altaic or Nostratic hypothesis, or not, we can borrow a some interesting comparisons from the Tower of Babel (ToB) and Evolution of Human Languages (EHL) projects again:




Proto-IE: *gʷhai-

Meaning: light, bright

Old Greek: phaio�-, pha�i̯dimo- `glnzend, stattlich', phai̯dro�- `hell, klar, heiter, frhlich, vergngt', phai̯dǖ�no `hell machen, reinigen, waschen; erheitern, erfrischen'

Baltic: *geĩd-r-a^, *gei^d-r-a^, *gaid-r-a^ f., *geĩd-r-a-, *gaĩd-r-u- adj., *gaĩd-s-a- c., *gid-r-a- adj.

Albanian: (?) zi 'black'

References: WP I 665, Buck 60.




Proto-Uralic: *koje

English meaning: morning dawn

Finnish: koi 'Morgendmmerung', koitta- 'grauen, dmmern', koite, koitto 'Tagesanbruch'

Estonian: koi-valge 'Abendrte', koit (gen. koitu) 'id.; Morgenrte', koita- 'dmmern'

Komi (Zyrian): ki̮a (S) 'Rte am Himmel'

Khanty (Ostyak): kun��l (V), ẋun�t� (DN), ẋun��l� (O) 'Rte am Himmel', ẋus�l̥ (Syn.), kot�l (V), ẋăt (DN), ẋăt�l (O) 'Tag, Sonne'

Mansi (Vogul): khọj (T), khuj (LM), ẋuj (N) 'Morgenrte', kat�.l (TJ), ẋot�l (KU), kot�l (P) 'Tag'

Hungarian: hajnal 'Tagesanbruch, Morgenroth'

Nenets (Yurak): ẋ�jer" (O) 'Sonne; klar (wetter)'

Enets (Yen): kaja (Ch.) 'Sonne'

Nganasan (Tawgi): kou

Selkup: kuetj (Ta.), kyetj (NP) 'Hitze', k"<uetje (OO)

Kamass: kuja 'Sonne'

Sammalahti's version: FU *koji (Sam > *kaja, vgl. UEW 642)

Addenda: Koib. ку�; Mot. кае, кай�; Taig. ха�

Yukaghir parallels: ẋoi 'Gott' [Warum "> juk."?]



Polat Kaya:  Please note that some of this group of words have Turkish "GN" embedded in them.  For example, Finish koitta- 'grauen, is very much the Turkish expression "AGARAN GIT"meaning "it is the lightening sky" or "it is the brightening sky" which is a definition of DAWN in Turkish.  The Turkish expression "AGARAN GIT" is one very good definition in Turkish for DAWN.  If linguists do not know what I have just now revealed about this Finnish word, then, whatever they say about it is lacking, misleading and far away from the truth.  Evidently this Finnish word was also manufactured from Turkish but the manufacturing is such that the facts have been well hidden from observation.   Turkish word "AGARAN" means "that which brightens" or "that which is becoming white", "GOI" means "sky", and "GOIT" means "it is sky".

Similarly, when the Finish word 
koi 'Morgendmmerung' is rearranged letter-by-letter as "KOIUN-MOR-GEN-AGRMMDE", I find the Turkish expression "GYN MOR GN AGARMADI" meaning "it is the brightening of the sky with purple/red Sun" which is again "dawn".  So this is another definition in Turkish of the phenomena of Dawn.  Turkish words "KY" (GY) means "sky", KYN (GYN) means "of sky", MOR means "purple / red", and GN mean "sun". 

In view of what I am revealing, linguists have to reassess what they have been doing and start thinking that Turkish was the original model language and that there has been a lot of restructuring from it in coming up with words of new forms. 


And also:


Proto-Uralic: *kuŋe

English meaning: moon; month

Finnish: kuu 'Mond; Monat'

Estonian: kuu

Saam (Lapp): kuojijti- (L) 'aufgehen (vom Mond)' ?

Mordovian: kov, koŋ (E), kov (M) 'Mond; Monat'

Khanty (Ostyak): ẋăw (Ko.) 'Monat', ẋŭw (Kaz.)

Hungarian: ho� (PxSg 3 P hava) 'Monat', hold 'Mond', ho�nap 'Monat'

Nganasan (Tawgi): kit�ada 'Monat'

Kamass: ki 'Mond; Monat'

Janhunen's version: (128) *ki6ji6/*kuŋi6

Sammalahti's version: *ki6xi6

Addenda: Koib. kuiï 'Mond'; Mot. ki-tit; Karag. ки��тить; Taig. киштинь

Yukaghir parallels: kiŋze 'Mond; Monat'



Polat Kaya:  In Turkish the name of the Moon is AY as is the name of month. Additionally, in Turkish Oguz Kagan Epic, AY (Moon) gets another name called MA.  




Eurasiatic: *gojn�V

Meaning: dawn

Indo-European: *gʷhei- 'мерцать' (Pok. 488-489)

Altaic: *gi̯�̀jn�u

Uralic: *koj[n�]e

References: МССЯ 342, ОСЯ 1, 230-231; ND 701 *goXyV 'light, sunshine, dawn'; 905 *Kun̄yaHl�E 'sunshine, daybreak'; ND 1080 *Ḳn̄V *Ḳun̄E 'sun, day' (hardly distinguishable; but cf. also Ural. *kuŋe 'moon').




From the very same source, we can also cite the following etymologies (based on Pokorny):




Proto-IE: *nogh-, *nokt- <PIH *noghu-, *noghut->

Meaning: night

Hittite: neku- (I) 'es wird Abend, es dmmert', nekut- c. 'Abend' (Friedrich 150)

Old Indian: na�kta- (acc. na�ktam) n., nakt�� (instr. naktay��) f. `at night'; nak, na�kti- f. `night'; akt�� `night'; aktu�- m. `dark tinge, darkness, night; tinge, ray, light'

Other Iranian: Wakh. naɣ'd 'night'

Old Greek: n�ks, gen. nkto�s f. `Nacht'; in Zs. nkti-, nkto-; adv. n�ktor `nac�hts'; { *acc. n�kha `ночью' (Hes.) }, { hom. "̣na�-nkho- `neun Nchte hindurch (adj.) }, e�n-nkho-, en-n�khio- `nchtlich, in der Nacht', { pan-n�khio-s die ganze Nacht dauernd }, n�khio- `nchtlich', { *loc. au̯to-nkhi� in derselben Nacht }; aktī�s, gen. -i^n-os f. `Strahl, Licht'

Slavic: *notjь

Baltic: *nakt-i- (*nakt=)

Germanic: *naxt- c., *naxt-i- c.

Latin: nox, gen. noctis (OLat nox), alb. nocte, pl. gen. noctium `Nacht'; adv. (*gen.) nox `nachts'; noctu `bei Nacht'

Celtic: OIr innocht `hac nocte'; Cymr peu-noeth `jede Nacht', heno `hac nocte', nos `Nacht', neit-hiwyr, neit-hwyr `last night' (hwyr `Abend'); MCymr trannoeth `am folgendfen Tage', Corn haneth `hac nocte', nos `Nacht', nehues `last night', Bret henoz `hac nocte', noz `Nacht', NBret neizeur `last night', MBret neyzor `last night'

Albanian: natɛ Nacht

Tokharian: A nakcu, B nekciye 'last night, at night' (PT *nekʷcwye-) (Adams 342)

References: WP II 337 f

Comments: Cont. with *Ang- 'early'.



Polat Kaya:    I have already talked in my previous postings about the makeup of words meaning "night" - that they have been manufactured from Turkish.  

The name TOKHARIAN is also a bogus name made up from the Turkish expression "TORK-HAN-IA" (TURK HAN Y) meaning "Home of the Turk Lords".   They do this kind of alteration to deny the presence of Turks in their own homeland.

When the so called Tokharian B "NEKCIYE" is rearranged as "KECE-YIN", we find the Turkish name "GECEYIN" or "GECE-LE-YIN" meaning "in the night".  Turkish "GECE means "night" and YIN is a Turkish suffix that appears in the Turkish words GECELEYIN meaning "in the night" and GNDZLEYIN meaning "in the day".   None of this is due to coincidence or my "making up as I go along."


Again, we may look at some interesting comparanda:




Uralic: FL *n/ǹukkV- 'sleep'

Chukchee-Kamchatkan: *n�ki ночь


Proto-Chukchee-Kamchatkan: *'�nki                        Polat Kaya: Turkish KECE is present with wrapping.

Meaning: "night"

-- Proto-Chukchee-Koryak: *�̣nkị "  "night"        Polat Kaya: Turkish KECE is present with wrapping.

---- Chukchee: n�ki�-rit, nɛki�-tɛ adv.                    Polat Kaya: Turkish KECE is present with wrapping.

---- Koryak: n�ki-n�k " (III)                                       Polat Kaya: Turkish KECE is present with wrapping.

---- Palan: nki-nk "                                                 Polat Kaya: Turkish KECE is present with wrapping.

---- Alutor: n�ki-n�k ", n(�)ki-                                Polat Kaya: Turkish KECE is present with wrapping.

-- Proto-Itelmen: *(n)ki-nk *(n)ku-nk

---- Itelmen: nkink

---- West Itelmen: 'ikunk, 'ukunk, kink [kunku*]

---- South Itelmen: xinadk

---- Number in Volodin 1976: 154




<< Eurasiatic : *nVḳV "night"





Now that I have shown the probable cognacy for both - the Turkish word for "day", and the Indo-European words for "night" - all in accord with the well-known regular phonological correspondences and attested semantic shifts, I think the idea of a genetic link between the two groups of expressions, although an interesting one, is rather untenable. Similarly, we can have a look at the etymology of one of the Indoeuropean expressions for 'milk':


Polat Kaya:    Please note that although something may be "well known" but not necessarily "correctly known". You have to take into account what I have been saying.  You cannot readily brush off what I have said.  Night is the opposite of day.  This is unquestionably true. And the NAK  or NOC or NEG, NIG, etc. appearing in IE words meaning "night" are simply the opposite of the Turkish word GUN meaning "day".  If someone wanted to manufacture a new word meaning "night", this is the kind of thing they would do, that is, reverse the vord GN meaning "day". It would be as good as any other word and simpler to make.  In addition to reversing Turkish GUN into NUG or NAK or NOC or NUK or NEG etc., they also linguistically wrapped it with the Turkish suffix TU or TI both meaning "it is".  This makes the resultant word even more alienated from Turkish. 

Please also note that  even the word ETYMOLOGY is made up from Turkish contrary to what is known by "linguists". 

The Greek form of the word is given as "ETUMOLOGIA", [Divry, p. 516].

When the word "ETUMOLOGIA" is rearranged letter-by-letter as "GELIMA-OTU-O", I find the Turkish expression "GELIME ADU O" (KELIME ADI O) meaning "it is the word name" which describes in Turkish the meaning of the so-called "Greek" word ETUMOLOGIA. Each "word" is a name for a concept. So is the word "ETUMOLOGIA"

Alternatively, when the word "ETUMOLOGIA" is rearranged letter-by-letter as "ATIM-OLGU-O-E", I find the Turkish expression "ADIM OLGU O" meaning "it is the formation of my name", that is, "it is the formation of the word describing a concept" which perfectly describes in Turkish the meaning of the "Greek" word ETUMOLOGIA.  Thus, the word "ETUMOLOGIA" is a restructured, Hellenized and disguised  form of a Turkish expression. 

So you see, as linguists, you are using a word (i.e., ETYMOLOGY) as a yardstick for explaining the linguistic makeup of other words. Yet this word itself has been made up from Turkish and is not well identified.  



Proto-IE: *g(')alag(')-

Meaning: milk

Hittite: galank- 'besnftigen', galaktar 'Besnftigung, Opfersubstanz zur Besnftigung' (Tischler 463 with doubt).

Old Greek: ga�la, -ktos `Milch'; gla�gos n. `id.'

Latin: lac, gen. lactis n. `Milch, milchiger Saft', pl. lactes, -ium `die mit einer milchartigen Fettigkeit berzogenen Dnndrme der Tiere; die Milch mnnlicher Fische'; lactuca f. `Lattich, Kopfsalat'; delicus `der Muttermllch entwhnt'




(in EDAL:)


Proto-Turkic: *sǖt

Meaning: milk

Old Turkic: st (OUygh.)

Karakhanid: st (MK)

Turkish: st

Tatar: s̆t

Middle Turkic: st (AHAbush.), sd (Pav. C.)

Uzbek: sut

Uighur: st

Sary-Yughur: st, st

Azerbaidzhan: sd

Turkmen: sǖt

Khakassian: st

Shor: st

Oyrat: st

Halaj: sit

Chuvash: s�ʷt

Yakut: ǖt

Tuva: st

Kirghiz: st

Kazakh: st

Noghai: st

Bashkir: h̆t

Balkar: st

Gagauz: st

Karaim: st

Karakalpak: st

Salar: st

Kumyk: st

Comments: EDT 798, VEWT 438, Лекика 448-449, ЭСТЯ 7.


Proto-Mongolian: *-s-n

Meaning: milk

Written Mongolian: s(n) (L 744), sn

Middle Mongolian: sn (SH), sun (IM), su (MA), sun (Lig.VMI)

Khalkha: sǖ(n)

Buriat: hn, dial. he(n)

Kalmuck: sn, sn

Ordos: s(n)

Dagur: su (Тод. "аг. 164, MD 213)

Shary-Yoghur: sun

Monguor: sun (SM 360)

Mogol: sn; ZM sun (15-5a)

Comments: KW 340, 460, MGCD 614. Mong. > Manchu sun (see Rozycki 190).

Polat Kaya:    There has been a change in the original Turkish word ST where the letter "T" has been changed to a letter "N".  Thus the original Turkish ST is still there with at least 66/% presence.


Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *site-

Meaning: 1 to soak (intr.) 2 slightly trickling (of woman's milk)

Negidal: site- 1

Ulcha: site- 1

Nanai: sitã 2 (Он.)

Comments: ТМС 2, 100.


Proto-Korean: *stɨ�-m

Meaning: 1 sweat 2 water after washing rice

Modern Korean: t:am 1, t:ɨmul 2

Middle Korean: stɨ�-m 1, stɨ�-mɨ�r 2

Comments: HMCH 209, Liu 249, KED 409, 526.




(Hence, to sum up:)


Proto-Altaic: *si̯ū�t`i ( -t-)

Meaning: milk, a k. of liquid

Turkic: *sǖt

Mongolian: *-s-n

Tungus-Manchu: *site-

Korean: *stɨ�-

Comments: Лекика 449. Mong. cannot be a Turkic loanword, despite Щербак 1997, 150. The form must be traced to *st-sn > *s-sn (with a regular dissimilative development > *sn). Kor. has a frequent loss of vowel between a fricative and a stop. The original meaning must have been 'liquid' or 'milk-like liquid' (with drops or bubbles on the surface) - whence, on the one hand, "sweat" and "soak", on the other - "milk" (in the Turk.-Mong. area).


Polat Kaya:   The above *st-sn in your comments would mean "you are milk" in Turkish.  Connecting "ST" to the concepts of "SWEAT" and "SOAK" is totally wrong and out of place.  There are all kinds of liquids that are not "milk".  And besides, SWEAT is not MILK and neither is SOAK.  Turkish ST is the original original - that is, the genuine original.  When we have a "milk-like-liquid" we used the Turkish expression "ST GIBI" meaning "milk like" in which the other liquid is compared to "ST" meaning that "ST" is the original reference.  So we have to understand our concepts clearly.  For instance, the plant MILKWEED, when broken, produces a white milk-like liquid - but it is not MILK.  It is MILK-LIKE and MILK (ST) is the reference.



Further, we can have a look at external comparisons:




Proto-IE: *ksweid-

Meaning: milk, butter

Avestan: xvī̆d- m. 'Milch; flssige Nahrung berhaupt'

Baltic: *swei^d-(s)t-a-/*sweĩd-(s)t-a- c.

References: WP II 521



Polat Kaya:   I say initially there was no "Indo-European" languages.  The referenced "PROTO -IE"  was Turkish as the IE languages have been made up from Turkish!  Turkish word for "butter" is YAG and it was also YAG (IAG) in Sumerian. 


Proto-Uralic: *sOtV

English meaning: fat (of a reindeer)

Saam (Lapp): i̊t (T, gen. -tti̊ge), i̮`a (Kld.) 'Seehundspeck in natrlichem Zustande' ?

Nenets (Yurak): tū" (O), tut (Nj.) 'Talg, Fett (z. B. unter dem Fell des Rentiers)' ?

Enets (Yen): tu (gen. turo") (Ch.), tu (gen. tudo") (B) 'Rentiertalg' ?

Nganasan (Tawgi): t�ụ", c" 'Rentiertalg' ?

Addenda: Mot. tun 'Fett'; Taig. tun




(and also:)


Proto-Uralic: *ode (*�`�e)

English meaning: to penetrate (through a hole), flow

Saam (Lapp): suodda^- (N) 'let the air out, leak (of inflated bladder)', (I) 'durchdringen, durch ein Loch od. dgl. zischend strmen (von der Luft)'

Mordovian: cud�e- (E), ud�e- (M) 'flieen, rinnen'




Proto-Kartvelian: *c̣�wet-

English meaning: drop, to drop

Georgian: c̣wet-

Megrel: �̣vat-, �̣vet-

Svan: wed-

Laz: �̣vet-, �̣ot-

Notes and references: ЭСКЯ 250, EWK 524. Ср. алт. *sut`i 'капл�, жидко�ть; молоко'; ПИЕ *sweid- 'пот; молоко'.


(etc. summed up as follows:)


Eurasiatic: *c`UtV

Meaning: a k. of liquid

Indo-European: *ksu̯eid-

Altaic: *si̯ū�t`i ( -t-)

Uralic: *sOtV 'Fett, Talg (des Rentiers)' [cf. also *ode 'flow, penetrate through a hole']

Kartvelian: *c̣�wet-

Dravidian: *Coṭ-

References: ND 368 *c̣otV (Kartv. + Drav. + Arab. sada 'night dew'); 2131 *st(y)V 'to drink, suck; milk' (IE + Alt + Sem + Svan. -dm- 'drink'?). Cf. *C̣un�tV.




As for the numeral '8', let me cite the etymological summary again, please:




Proto-IE: *ok'to

Meaning: num.: eight

Old Indian: aṣt��, -��u `eight'

Avestan: ata

Armenian: uth

Old Greek: okt��, ord. o�gdo(w)o-

Slavic: *osmь

Baltic: *acto^-n-

Germanic: Got aht", etc.

Latin: octo

Celtic: OIt ocht n-, Cymr wyth, NCorn eath, Bret eiz (< *ochti)

Albanian: tetɛ

Tokharian: A okt, B okt (PT *okt()) 'eight' (Adams 110)

References: WP I 172 f


Polat Kaya:    I have already explained that the Latin OCTA is an imposter. So is the Greek word OKTW meaning "eight".  They are the cut-off front end of words that were manufactured from Turkish.  This knowledge was not known by linguists until they heard it from Polat Kaya. 



According to Blazhek (NUMERALS - Comparative Etymological Analyses and their Implications, 1999, Masaryk University in Brno, pp. 263-276), the numeral may have originally meant 'fingers without thumb' (in the dual), hence: *H2okˇetom 'a set of points (of one hand)', perhaps syncopated to *H2okˇto-. The plural *H2okˇeteH2 > *okˇeta: 'sets of points' was, in Blazhek says, reinterpreted into 'harrow.' The primary etymology starts from the root *H2okˇ*H2ekˇ 'pointed, sharp.' Blazhek also supports this etymology by Avestan ati-, which was a unit of length.


Then, of course, we may look at the descendant forms of *H2okˇ:

Polat Kaya:    I wish you had written these words properly in the so-called "Latin" alphabet which was in fact the ETRUSK alphabet. The whole thing is so distorted and goobledegook that it is extremely difficult to make head or tail out of it. How do we know that "the numeral may have originally meant 'fingers without thumb' (in the dual)"?  Why without the "thumb"?  In Turkish when we count using our fingers, we get the numbers up to and including "TEN" , that is, "ON" in Turkish which is the basis for a "TEN" based numbering system.  I would say that in this case "ten fingers of both hands, that is, inclusive of the thumbs" was very much part of the numbering system.  I would also say that even the word TEN is from Turkish "ONTI" meaning "it is ten". 




Old Greek: o�kri-s m. `Spitze, scharfe Kante, Ecke', okri�-bas `erhhter Platz, Gerust, Tribne'; oks�- `scharf, stechend', o�ksos n. `Weinessig'

Germanic: *a�xw-al-a- m.

Latin: ocris, -is m. `steiniger Berg'; mediocris, -e `mittelmssig, nicht sehr gross; unbedeutend; gemassigt, gengsam', medioximus `der mittelste'; ?? ocrea f. `Beinschiene'

Other Italic: Umbr ukar, ocar `arx, mons'

Celtic: MIr ochar `Ecke, Rand', Cymr ochr, ochyr `Rand'; *okulena: OCymr ocoluin `cos', NCymr agalen, hogalen; *hakulena: NBret higolen `Wetzstein'

References: WP I 28 f




This can be linked to Dravidian *ògir, for example, meaning 'claw, nail' < Eurasiatic *Hoḳi  'sharp.'


Turkish sekiz, on the other hand, has a very different etymology.


Blazhek (in the same book, pp. 106-107) offers the following developement:




T[ur]k[ic] *sek(k)ir '8' is segmentable in *ek(k)i '2' & *-r 'dual marker' ; for the initial *s- the meaning 'without' can be expected. Its direct traces are not evident in Turkic, but the negative verb in Mongolian and Tungus represent a hopeful evidence...: W[este]r[n ]Mo[ngolic], M[iddle ]Mo[ngolic], Urdus ese, Daghur e_s, Monguor se_ etc. 'not to be' ... // Ewenki e_sin- 'not to be', Olcha -asi-/-e_si- etc. ... Ramstedt ... adds Kor[ean] e_tta : e_se_ : e_si_n 'to be contrary, be sideways', cf. W[este]r[n ]Mo[ngolic] eserg 'contrary', esergce- 'to oppose'; Miller ... finds further O[ld ]J[a]p[anese] ese 'wretched, miserable, worthless, displeasing, poor'. A hypothetical cognate in Turkic can be identified in the word-pair *s-irk- vs. *irk-, cf.  M[iddle ]T[ur]k[ic] sirg(n) 'sich ber einen Verlust betrben', Azerbaijan sirg 'nicht gern geben' vs. M[iddle ]T[ur]k[ic] irk 'sammeln' ... Cf. also the O[ld ]T[ur]k[ic] negative suffixes -siz, -sz, -suz, -sz, -sul ...




The tripple dots usually replace the lengthy references in the original text. Please, if anyone wishes to know them, let me know - I will be glad to list them.


Now, we can look at what is proposed by the authors of the EDAL:

Polat Kaya:    I disagree with your segmentation and explanation above. The word SEKIZ is SEKIZ which is SEKIZ and it is the name of the numeral "eight' in Turkish.  There is no "*S meaning 'without'" about it.  A much more logical way to look at it would be that it is a multiple of Turkish "IKI" meaning "two". In this context, it could be said that this Turkish word is  from Turkish  "EKIZIZ" (IKIZIZ) meaning "we are twins" or "we are twos".  After all, the number eight could be defined as "8  = 2 + 2+ 2 + 2" with four twos in a row.




Proto-Turkic: *ẹk(k)i

Meaning: two

Russian meaning: два

Old Turkic: eki (Orkh., OUygh.)

Karakhanid: ẹki (MK)

Turkish: iki

Tatar: ike

Middle Turkic: iki (AHIM)

Uzbek: ikki

Uighur: ikki

Sary-Yughur: igɨ

Azerbaidzhan: iki

Turkmen: iki

Khakassian: eke

Shor: igi

Oyrat: eki

Halaj: kki, kkị

Chuvash: ikk�

Yakut: ikki

Dolgan: ikki

Tuva: ĩji

Tofalar: ĩxi

Kirghiz: eki

Kazakh: eki

Noghai: eki

Bashkir: ike

Balkar: eki

Gagauz: iki

Karaim: ekɨ

Karakalpak: eki

Salar: iky

Kumyk: eki

Comments: VEWT 39, EDT 100-1, ЭСТЯ 1, 337-339, Егоров 67-68, Stachowski 124.


Polat Kaya:     All of the above given names are pure Turkish and have only dialectal variations. 



(external Altaic cognates:)


Proto-Mongolian: *(h)ekire

Meaning: twins

Written Mongolian: ikere, ikire (L 401)        

Khalkha: ixer

Buriat: exir

Kalmuck: ikr

Ordos: eker, ekir

Comments: KW 206. Mong. ikire 'twins' > Evk. ikire etc., see Doerfer MT 99, Rozycki 115.


Polat Kaya: IKERE or IKIRE is from Turkish "IKI ER" meaning "two men".  The concept of "twins" consists of "two of the same thing or person".  Similarly, the other words IXER and EXIR are IKISER and EKISIR are nothing but the Turkish word "IKIZ ER" meaning "Two men".  Turkish "IKIZ / EKIZ means "twins" and "ER mean "man".  So their source is pure Turkish.  The use of the bogus letter X covers up the Turkish word IKIZ so that the Turkish source of these so-called "Proto-Mongolian" words is not readily recognizable.  



Proto-Korean: *p�̀kɨ�-

Meaning: next, following

Modern Korean: p�gɨm

Middle Korean: p�̀kɨ�-

Comments: Nam 254, KED 758.




Proto-Japanese: *p�̀ka�

Meaning: other

Old Japanese: p(w)oka

Middle Japanese: fòka�

Tokyo: hòka

Kyoto: hòka�

Kagoshima: hoka�

Comments: JLTT 413. Most dialects (and RJ) point to *p�̀ka�, but Tokyo indicates a variant *p��ka�.






Proto-Altaic: *p`i̯òk`e

Meaning: pair, couple

Turkic: *ẹk(k)i

Mongolian: *(h)ekire

Korean: *p�̀kɨ�-

Japanese: *p�̀ka�

Comments: EAS 93, 'ладимирцов 321, ПиПЯЯ 284. Mong. *(h)ekire 'twins' = PT *ẹkir� (ЭСТЯ 1, 252-254) (although it is frequently regarded as borrowed from Turk., see TMN 2, 190-191, Щербак 1997, 119-120, Rozycki 115, this is hardly the case; borrowed is Mong. ikes 'placenta', see Clark 1980, 39). A different etymology of the Japanese word (: MKor. pask) see Martin 238. Kor. has a usual verbal low tone. {Cf. Amer. *pok 'two, second' (R 798)}


Polat Kaya:     Linguists are again out in left field.  The so-called *p`i̯òk`e  is the Turkish word "IKI OLIP" (IKI OLUP) meanin "it has become two"  which is the concept of "pair" and "couple".  When people get married, they become "two" and they become "pair and couple", they became "mate" to each other.  Hence the source of the word is Turkish and has  nothing to do with the concept of "placenta".  I must also point out that, the word for "placenta" in Turkish is also called EKIZ / IKIZ which seems to have been disregarded in your above comment.  Additionally, another word for "placenta" in Turkish is "ESh"  meaning "mate" or "companion".  So the source is Turkish.  



Note that the initial Proto-Altaic *p'- always yields Proto-Turkic *0- (i.e. the  'zero' reflex; see EDAL, pp. 27, or alternatively Blazhek's review, pp. 1) or, frequently, *j- when followed by Proto-Altaic diphthongs *i̯o*i̯a (phonetic developement observable cross-linguistically; for example, something like a bilabial plosive >  labial affricate/aspirate > labial fricative > zero reflex, or similar)


As for the original dual marker, we can list Tungusic plural *-r, Proto-Turkic *-r (yielding -z in Turkish, I suppose) for paired objects, and similarly *-r for paired objects in Proto-Japanese ( = Proto-Japonic in some publications), all from the Proto-Altaic dual marker *-rV.


The negative morpheme has already been explained in the quotation from Blazhek's NUMERALS.


As far as the Sanskrit words, mentioned in the posting, it is important to remember that, originally, Sanskrit was written using the Brahmi (and later Devanagari) script, not the Latin alphabet. The phonetic developements are independent of the way people transcribe them. Scripts are only means or tools to save the texts in order not to be forgotten. Some scripts are better suited for certain languages than others. For instance, the Cyrillic alphabet is quite inappropriate when one wants to write in the various Caucasian languages. The Latin alphabet also lacks various graphemes languages might need to put down specific sounds.

Polat Kaya:      I do not believe any of these so-called linguistic explanations.  They all sound very superficial and unconvincing. 


Therefore, people often 'adopt' and 'extend' the scripts to fit their mother tongues. The traditions vary from country to country. German has a very regular system of digraphs or trigraphs, for example:


"ch" pronounced as a voiceless velar fricative when not next to a front vowel, otherwise as a voiceless palatal fricative

"sch" pronounced as English "sh" (historically, it was a cluster of "s" plus "ch")

"tsch" pronounced as English "tsh"

"(t)z" pronounced as "ts"




Polish also uses digraphs to write down sounds Latin lacked:


"sz" English "sh"

"cz" English "tsh"


But in certain cases, it also uses diacritics: "n" (like in English) versus "n" (palatal nasal - just like in the global climatic effect from Spanish).


The neighbouring Czech language has used diacritics for a long time, thanks to the Czech religious reformer John Huss:


"" English "sh"

"c" English "tsh"

"".....often transcribed as "zh" in English (voiced post-alveolar fricative)

Polat Kaya:      I do not believe any of these linguistic explanations.  They all sound very unconvincing. I believe they have been intentionally designed to cover up a usurpation from Turkish 


But it has a single digraph "ch" to write down the velar fricative. Czechs could use "x" instead (like in the IPA), but they have already borrowed many words from Latin, where "x" was used for the cluster "ks". Also, they are used to reading the combination "ch" as a velar fricative, since they were long ruled by German speaking monarchs.


The reasons to use diacritics or not has usually been economy. Diacritics may be faster to write down (digraphs may be easier), one may well save some space on the page (digraphs do not need any extra keys on keyboards), and thus also paper or other material.


Since the number of sounds used in various languages is very high, phoneticians decided to create a unified, international alphabet that would be capable of recording texts in a way that each phone (i.e. each segmental unit of speech) would be transcribable in the ratio one sound: one grapheme. (


There are other transcription systems, too. Sometimes, the precise phonetic nature of the segmental units is irrelevant, especially when we deal with phonology rather than phonetics, i.e. when certain phonetic features (such as voicing of the consonants) is not relevant for the semantics.


Some linguistic schools hesitate to use the IPA, (because its typing can be rather complicated due to the need of a special software), while still insisting on the one-to-one ratio, and use diacritics instead (of course, even diactics needs special short-cuts, special keyboard settings). Please, compare the IPA to and with the 'Starostinian' presented here: .


Knowing these facts, one can hardly suppose that letters of Turkish words and phrases were in any way transposed to form new words in the various Indo-European languages.


What is even more important than that, some phonetic developements are absolutely inobvious and non-transparent. We can see this in French, which has regularly initial voiceless post-alveolar fricative (just like "sh" in English) from the original voiceless velar plosive. Via regular phonetic changes (supported by hundreds of etyma), the Indo-European root *kWon- "dog" became gradually French "sheng" (written in the English system). In a similar regular way, Proto-Indo-European *gW gave rise to Ancient Greek b (the labial feature remained, the velar one was lost), but when followed by a PIE *u, it became d, when followed bya PIE front vowels *i, *e (the labial feature moved the pronunciation further to the front, and the front vowels increased the 'pressure' on fronting, as well; the velarity was gradually lost), and finally *g, when followed by the already back (i.e. velar) PIE vowel *u. I have found a neat and brief summary of the basic changes for you in the Wikipedia (


This regularities prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there is a genealogical relationship between the Indo-European languages. Probability of achieving this by coincidental metathesizing the letters of Turkish words is very low. The various languages and their lexicons would have had to be made cognates intentionally, if we were to believe Dr. Kaya's ideas, at the very beginning of their spreading, which contradicts the witnessed fact that, in accord with the above examples, Old French looked and sounded different than its modern descendant. The regular sound shifts have been recorded in many literary masterpieces without any intention. The poets' rhymed verses are often the key to this, as today, they would not rhyme anymore.


As far as the rest of the posting is concerned, I am going to add some more comments tomorrow, together (hopefully) with the analyzed Turco-Sumerian lexical comparisons. Thank you for your patience in advance.






Dear Rebb, thank you for writing.  Your list has been useful and I appreciated your effort and contribution.

My best wishes in the New Year to you and to all,

Polat Kaya

Remainder snipped